TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully describes the return data structure (three earnings categories) but omits explicit safety traits (read-only nature), side effects, or authentication requirements that would help an agent understand this is safe to call repeatedly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. Critical information (resource, breakdown structure) front-loaded in first sentence; filtering capability in second. Appropriate density for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Strong compensation for missing output schema by enumerating return fields (total/pending/paid). Slight gap: given sibling 'withdraw_earnings' exists, should explicitly clarify this is read-only/reporting functionality to prevent agent confusion about which tool moves funds.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% description coverage with ISO 8601 format details. Description adds semantic context that filtering is 'optional' (aligning with zero required parameters in schema), but doesn't add syntax examples or clarify behavior when date range is omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Excellent specificity: verb 'Get' + resource 'earnings' + scope 'by pool' + detailed breakdown of return fields (total earned, pending payout, paid out). The description distinguishes this retrieval tool from sibling 'withdraw_earnings' (action vs. query) and 'get_balance' (earnings vs. general balance).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides implied usage through 'Optionally filter by date range,' indicating temporal querying capability. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'withdraw_earnings' or 'get_balance,' and doesn't state prerequisites like pool registration.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.